Timeline for Is it immoral to read scientific articles if you find them as pdf on Google without having access to some official libraries?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2018 at 1:02 | comment | added | Dmitri Zaitsev | @cbeleites Most scientists prefer to focus on their work rather than fixing the unethical work done by publishers. I don't think it is fair to call it laziness. There is now some hope to change this impasse and everyone is welcome to help: gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues | |
| May 3, 2018 at 19:02 | comment | added | cbeleites | @DmitriZaitsev: but then, there's no law whatsoever that prevents you, me or others of founding a journal that doesn't have such practices. So IMHO, the power of the publishers is based on the lazyness of scientists. (And there are some examples where sufficiently important scientists decided to do something and actually did it.) | |
| May 3, 2018 at 14:38 | comment | added | henning no longer feeds AI | @MJeffreys Maybe it's not a great fit for this site, but the question can't be answered without considering the legality of the action. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 14:33 | comment | added | MJeffryes | @henning Soocks hasn't mentioned the law. Their answer is about ethics. Whether it's ethical to break an unethical law isn't really a question for this site in my opinion. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 14:00 | comment | added | henning no longer feeds AI | Well, there's the point that it's against the law. Maybe the law is wrong, but that doesn't automatically make it right to break it. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 13:34 | history | edited | Soocks | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Oct 22, 2017 at 14:23 | comment | added | Dmitri Zaitsev | @Darkwing The unethical and immoral part of the publisher's deal is to force the authors to pass them all copyrights for their published work. | |
| Sep 15, 2017 at 16:50 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | @David: If nobody bought cigarettes then a lot of people would lose their jobs. That this is an ethical reason for buying cigarettes sounds really screwy to me. Replace it with "crack cocaine" or "Somali pirates" if it helps. I would certainly like to claim that this is "no reason at all." | |
| Sep 15, 2017 at 16:37 | comment | added | David Richerby | Well, here's one ethical reason: if nobody paid for journals, all the people that journals employ would lose their jobs. You can decide for yourself how big a reason you think that is, but it's certainly not no reason at all. | |
| Sep 15, 2017 at 16:03 | comment | added | Frank Hopkins | Publishers provide a service that was needed and they get money for it, I don't find that unethical. The problem is that technology is changing and at least the distribution aspect - one core service they provided - is a lot easier/cheaper to do, yet the old distribution way hasn't died out yet. The immoral part of selectively providing access to something that arguably should be public data is how we as a society "decided" to organize and finance the publishing process. | |
| Sep 15, 2017 at 16:01 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 15, 2017 at 19:17 | |||||
| Sep 15, 2017 at 15:57 | history | answered | Soocks | CC BY-SA 3.0 |